ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order 23.10.2013 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal ( for short 'the Tribunal') and the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the opposite party no.1.

(2.) THE facts, in short, are that petitioner filed claim petition for quashing of the order dated 29.11.2012, whereby his claim for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer was rejected with a further prayer to promote him on the post of Superintending Engineer from the date his juniors were promoted i.e. 25.1.1994 on the basis of then existing rules. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 31.8.1979 and he was completed 15 years of service on 31.8.1994. The petitioner had already been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 14.1.1987 and completed six years as Executive Engineer on 13.1.1993. On 6.7.1993 Departmental Promotion Committee was held as against ten vacancies of Superintending Engineer and at the relevant time, the requirement of Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Rural Engineering ( Group 'A') Service Rules, 1993 ( for short 'the Rules, 1993') was that Executive Engineer, who has completed six years of service or he has completed 15 years of service in all, was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on the date of consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Since the petitioner did not complete 15 years of service, he was not promoted as his name was not included in the eligibility list. Thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the candidature of the petitioner on 25.5.2012 and 11.3.2013, but he was not found suitable for the post of Superintending Engineer.

(3.) IT was admitted before the Tribunal by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not completed 15 years of service on 6.7.1993 and he did not fulfill the requirement on 25.1.1994 when the promotion orders were issued though it has been submitted that juniors to the petitioner were considered by the same Departmental Promotion Committee on 6.7.1993 and they were given promotion though they did not fulfill the requirement of 15 years of service, but they were promoted on 25.1.1994. He, therefore, claimed parity to his juniors and submitted that the petitioner should also be given promotion w.e.f. 25.1.1994.